|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 12 2016 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Tuesday night, even as votes were being tallied in New Hampshire, the Supreme Court shocked many — including the Obama administration — by putting on hold the president’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, pending resolution of a lawsuit against it by a number of states, utilities and coal companies.
Everybody knew the Clean Power Plan would face major legal challenges, but few thought they’d significantly derail it so early on. One legal expert, the Sierra Club’s Bruce Nilles, told the Post it was “unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stay a rule at this point in litigation. They do this in death-penalty cases.”
Given litigation timelines, the move suggests that the fate of the plan now may not even be decided until after Obama has left office, in 2017. Moreover, the stay also suggests the Supreme Court’s conservative majority looks askance at the plan and sees the challenges against it as serious. This means the next president could now be a major player in setting — or un-making — the nation’s climate policy.
All of this has generated an uproar, and there will be much talk of how it embarrasses Obama on the world stage and undermines the U.S.’s position in the Paris climate negotiations, where the Clean Power Plan was key to demonstrating that as the world’s second largest emitter, we’re doing our part.
However, there’s another side of the story. The fact of the matter is that the Clean Power Plan wasn’t set to fully kick in until 2022 — and in the interim, the U.S. has been going through something that looks a lot like the kind of transition it is meant to prompt even without the plan in place.
Namely: The nation has been slowly decarbonizing its electricity system, through the growth of renewables and the switching from burning coal to burning natural gas.
The same day the Supreme Court stalled the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released its monthly short term energy outlook. Here are some of the punchlines: Electricity from renewables is expected to grow 9.5 percent in 2016. “EIA expects utility-scale solar capacity will increase by about 80% (10 GW) between the end of 2015 and the end of 2017, with 4.1 GW of new capacity being built in California,” the agency adds (GW stands for gigawatt).
Meanwhile, total greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning actually declined in 2015, by 2.2 percent, the agency estimates. One key reason for this is that coal use declined 12 percent in the electricity sector, with much more burning of natural gas instead. EIA expects that natural gas in 2016 will, as in 2015, give coal a run for its money in supplying electricity, thanks to quite low prices. Source
Georgia announced that it would stop preparing to comply. I'm a little worried in that regard, but hopefully consumer action is strong enough to keep us going in the right direction.
This is really, really random, but I also want Obama to grow an afro. Like, starting now. Or after he's out of office.
|
On February 12 2016 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Tuesday night, even as votes were being tallied in New Hampshire, the Supreme Court shocked many — including the Obama administration — by putting on hold the president’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, pending resolution of a lawsuit against it by a number of states, utilities and coal companies.
Everybody knew the Clean Power Plan would face major legal challenges, but few thought they’d significantly derail it so early on. One legal expert, the Sierra Club’s Bruce Nilles, told the Post it was “unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stay a rule at this point in litigation. They do this in death-penalty cases.”
Given litigation timelines, the move suggests that the fate of the plan now may not even be decided until after Obama has left office, in 2017. Moreover, the stay also suggests the Supreme Court’s conservative majority looks askance at the plan and sees the challenges against it as serious. This means the next president could now be a major player in setting — or un-making — the nation’s climate policy.
All of this has generated an uproar, and there will be much talk of how it embarrasses Obama on the world stage and undermines the U.S.’s position in the Paris climate negotiations, where the Clean Power Plan was key to demonstrating that as the world’s second largest emitter, we’re doing our part.
However, there’s another side of the story. The fact of the matter is that the Clean Power Plan wasn’t set to fully kick in until 2022 — and in the interim, the U.S. has been going through something that looks a lot like the kind of transition it is meant to prompt even without the plan in place.
Namely: The nation has been slowly decarbonizing its electricity system, through the growth of renewables and the switching from burning coal to burning natural gas.
The same day the Supreme Court stalled the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released its monthly short term energy outlook. Here are some of the punchlines: Electricity from renewables is expected to grow 9.5 percent in 2016. “EIA expects utility-scale solar capacity will increase by about 80% (10 GW) between the end of 2015 and the end of 2017, with 4.1 GW of new capacity being built in California,” the agency adds (GW stands for gigawatt).
Meanwhile, total greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning actually declined in 2015, by 2.2 percent, the agency estimates. One key reason for this is that coal use declined 12 percent in the electricity sector, with much more burning of natural gas instead. EIA expects that natural gas in 2016 will, as in 2015, give coal a run for its money in supplying electricity, thanks to quite low prices. Source
The reason SCOTUS took this "unprecedented" step is they are onto the EPA and other administrative agencys' ruse: They issue a rule, knowing it will take 30 months + to work its way through the courts, meanwhile implementation of the rule must proceed otherwise the power plants, etc would face massive retroactive fines and penalties. So, even in the last 3 (maybe more) cases in a row that the EPA lost 8-1 or worse in the Supreme Court, it really still had won because it got 70% of what it was looking for through sheer bullying, even though it never had a leg to stand on.
|
On February 12 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 12 2016 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
The idea of pretending that the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist because matrices will become a thing 10 years down the line is pretty stupid. It adds unnecessary complexity and teaches nothing in a country where people are already pretty bad at math as a whole. I think you'll be happy to know that that's literally never an issue in elementary school. Students are generally introduced to the terms "commutative" and "associative" in grades 4-6, and they'll surely have discussions over which basic operations are commutative/ associative and which aren't... but I've never heard of a teacher say that "the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist" because eventually they'll learn about matrices. And if a teacher did say that, it would be her fault for being remiss in her explanation, rather than the fault of the curriculum or Common Core. So don't worry  It never should be an issue, that much is true. Indeed, there are few problems with CC in principle - it's a good idea to have a standardized curriculum that ensures a minimum quality of education everywhere. Problem is that my example was actually a real one, where students were told that visualizing 3x5 as 5x3 is wrong. It's not, and an exercise like that doesn't teach you math on any useful level. A teacher who understands enough analysis even at a rudimentary level would have been able to understand that and teach it properly, but that isn't exactly an expected qualification at an elementary school level. A teacher who doesn't get it would just be imposing arbitrary rules and pissing people off. Other issues I heard from teachers is about poor implementation and more arbitrary rules which seem to have merit at first glance, but that make students really miss the greater point if things are forced to be taught a certain way.
No, I mean, it's literally not an issue relevant to Common Core. No should/ ought/ could/ would. Isn't. Common Core does not dictate anything about 3x5 being different from 5x3. That is an educational error with the teacher, not Common Core.
My point is that there are a lot of errors in the classroom, but a specific math problem that's ambiguous or misleading, or a statement that a teacher makes about an operation or procedure, is not the fault of Common Core. If we're going to criticize Common Core, we want to criticize the things that Common Core is actually responsible for... not everything that goes wrong on a daily basis.
|
On February 12 2016 04:33 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Tuesday night, even as votes were being tallied in New Hampshire, the Supreme Court shocked many — including the Obama administration — by putting on hold the president’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, pending resolution of a lawsuit against it by a number of states, utilities and coal companies.
Everybody knew the Clean Power Plan would face major legal challenges, but few thought they’d significantly derail it so early on. One legal expert, the Sierra Club’s Bruce Nilles, told the Post it was “unprecedented for the Supreme Court to stay a rule at this point in litigation. They do this in death-penalty cases.”
Given litigation timelines, the move suggests that the fate of the plan now may not even be decided until after Obama has left office, in 2017. Moreover, the stay also suggests the Supreme Court’s conservative majority looks askance at the plan and sees the challenges against it as serious. This means the next president could now be a major player in setting — or un-making — the nation’s climate policy.
All of this has generated an uproar, and there will be much talk of how it embarrasses Obama on the world stage and undermines the U.S.’s position in the Paris climate negotiations, where the Clean Power Plan was key to demonstrating that as the world’s second largest emitter, we’re doing our part.
However, there’s another side of the story. The fact of the matter is that the Clean Power Plan wasn’t set to fully kick in until 2022 — and in the interim, the U.S. has been going through something that looks a lot like the kind of transition it is meant to prompt even without the plan in place.
Namely: The nation has been slowly decarbonizing its electricity system, through the growth of renewables and the switching from burning coal to burning natural gas.
The same day the Supreme Court stalled the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Energy Information Administration released its monthly short term energy outlook. Here are some of the punchlines: Electricity from renewables is expected to grow 9.5 percent in 2016. “EIA expects utility-scale solar capacity will increase by about 80% (10 GW) between the end of 2015 and the end of 2017, with 4.1 GW of new capacity being built in California,” the agency adds (GW stands for gigawatt).
Meanwhile, total greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning actually declined in 2015, by 2.2 percent, the agency estimates. One key reason for this is that coal use declined 12 percent in the electricity sector, with much more burning of natural gas instead. EIA expects that natural gas in 2016 will, as in 2015, give coal a run for its money in supplying electricity, thanks to quite low prices. Source The reason SCOTUS took this "unprecedented" step is they are onto the EPA and other administrative agencys' ruse: They issue a rule, knowing it will take 30 months + to work its way through the courts, meanwhile implementation of the rule must proceed otherwise the power plants, etc would face massive retroactive fines and penalties. So, even in the last 3 (maybe more) cases in a row that the EPA lost 8-1 or worse in the Supreme Court, it really still had won because it got 70% of what it was looking for through sheer bullying, even though it never had a leg to stand on.
From what I've seen, there is nothing "unprecedented" about what the Supreme Court did. It's textbook usage of a preliminary injunction. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
On February 12 2016 04:23 cLutZ wrote:
I do think that is a lot of faith in the adaptability of people in their 40s and 50s who essentially have been doing one thing for 10, 15, 20 years. I think that a lot of the value of older teachers is in their familiarity with the material, and, in particular their familiarity with where students and parents will struggle with it. And I don't blame them for having trouble adapting
I completely agree, and I sympathize with these parents who get confused and frustrated. I understand. I just don't like the leap they frequently make from "I can't do my kid's homework [because it's been 20 years/ I'm not sitting in her classroom]" to "My kid must not be learning properly/ the teacher is automatically bad/ Common Core sucks". It's more of a knee-jerk defense mechanism/ rationalization than actually caring about having a dialogue, most of the time.
|
On February 12 2016 04:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 01:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 12 2016 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
The idea of pretending that the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist because matrices will become a thing 10 years down the line is pretty stupid. It adds unnecessary complexity and teaches nothing in a country where people are already pretty bad at math as a whole. I think you'll be happy to know that that's literally never an issue in elementary school. Students are generally introduced to the terms "commutative" and "associative" in grades 4-6, and they'll surely have discussions over which basic operations are commutative/ associative and which aren't... but I've never heard of a teacher say that "the multiplicative commutative law doesn't exist" because eventually they'll learn about matrices. And if a teacher did say that, it would be her fault for being remiss in her explanation, rather than the fault of the curriculum or Common Core. So don't worry It never should be an issue, that much is true. Indeed, there are few problems with CC in principle - it's a good idea to have a standardized curriculum that ensures a minimum quality of education everywhere. Problem is that my example was actually a real one, where students were told that visualizing 3x5 as 5x3 is wrong. It's not, and an exercise like that doesn't teach you math on any useful level. A teacher who understands enough analysis even at a rudimentary level would have been able to understand that and teach it properly, but that isn't exactly an expected qualification at an elementary school level. A teacher who doesn't get it would just be imposing arbitrary rules and pissing people off. Other issues I heard from teachers is about poor implementation and more arbitrary rules which seem to have merit at first glance, but that make students really miss the greater point if things are forced to be taught a certain way.
Bad teachers exist. That is not really new.
And every time new regulations come in, people who have to deal with them struggle for a bit to grasp exactly what has changed in the demand to them. There can be misinterpretations and overreactions, like your 3*5 = 5*3 example. The basic idea is probably to make the students have a better understanding of multiplication before getting in the details, but that should not entail forcing someone who obviously already has that insight to take a step backwards and unlearn something correct. Someone probably told that teacher that that is a better way to teach multiplication (I have no idea how to teach multiplication to elementary schoolers), and he understood that as "YOU HAVE TO TEACH ALL THE STUDENTS EXACTLY THIS WAY, ITS THE LAW!"
However, it is also often reasonable to force a student who progresses too fast to take a step backwards and learn the thing he thinks he knows, but really only has a vague understanding of correctly and solidly. Diagnosis is important here. You have to find out if the student has a good understanding of the topic and thus skips steps, or if he doesn't know what the steps would be and just skips over them in the hopes that the end result will work by accident.
I am also not saying that the US school system is perfect systemically. I don't really have a lot of experience with it, but a lot of things that i heard suggest elsewise. Especially a focus on large amounts of standardized tests, and misusing those to judge teachers instead of students, is problematic. I am not entirely against standardized tests, if done in a reasonable way and in moderation, and if those tests are then used to judge what they are designed to, not things they are not designed to do.
The ressource allocation difference between rich and poor districts is also problematic, as people born in poorer districts should not be forced to go into worse schools, they already have worse chances at life without getting a worse education, too.
No school system is perfect, but having a common set of vague standards about what students should learn is probably a net positive.
|
I just read over some common core stuff and it seems mostly really good, at least in terms of objectives. I'm kind of puzzled about the emphasis on teaching linear algebra, though. Important for programming I guess, but more fields would benefit from the skills you gain from calculus. IMO it should be both, since they seem to recommend linear algebra in grade 8. Still got 4 more years, so keep cranking the math. The idea that high school students can reach a point where they don't need any more math is stupid. Everyone should learn at least beginner calculus and linear algebra.
|
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize?
|
On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize?
We developed calculators.
|
|
|
On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize?
I remember those from elementary school, though without prices except for teacher appreciation. I had a sick strategy. No matter the question, i just answered instantly, and then very slowly said "The .... answer .... to .... that ... question ..... is ........13", giving me enough time to do the calculations while talking slowly. I think i might have been a pretty annoying child.
|
On February 12 2016 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I just read over some common core stuff and it seems mostly really good, at least in terms of objectives. I'm kind of puzzled about the emphasis on teaching linear algebra, though. Important for programming I guess, but more fields would benefit from the skills you gain from calculus. IMO it should be both, since they seem to recommend linear algebra in grade 8. Still got 4 more years, so keep cranking the math. The idea that high school students can reach a point where they don't need any more math is stupid. Everyone should learn at least beginner calculus and linear algebra.
Based on the content of those standards and my experiences tutoring and teaching math, I'm pretty sure by "linear algebra" they're referring to understanding linear functions, y = mx + b, solving variables, basic systems of equations, etc. We generally don't do anything related to matrices until end of algebra 2 or precalculus, and even then it's pretty basic stuff. Middle school math does not include your typical 200/300/400 level linear algebra college concepts with characteristic polynomials and eigenvalues and linear algebra proofs. In the second half of high school they might do row operations and learn what a square matrix and determinant are, but that's about it.
|
On February 12 2016 04:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize? We developed calculators.
Exactly. We also don’t use slide rules. Or teach cursive any more. We could stand to bring back home eco though. That was a class that could have been modernized to teach kids how houses/apartments work.
|
The debate over the Common Core is a pretty good example of how a lot of "big, federal government=bad" narratives end up having very little teeth in the end, particularly when one unpacks exactly what is being claimed. It's pretty common to hear "Common Core is bad because it's forced my kid to do this in school!" However, as has been described above, stateside implementation of the federal mandate is actually what ends up being woefully bad (the Common Core itself is pretty good), and in many cases, this can be directly attributed to some pretty incompetent state boards/departments of educaton.
Accordingly, we have to deal with obnoxiously stupid Facebook posts about how some bumfuck parent is mad that he can't figure out how to solve the math problem being taught to his daughter because said bumfuck parent either voted an idiot businessman onto the board of education or didn't vote at all.
|
On February 12 2016 05:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:56 Mohdoo wrote:
I just read over some common core stuff and it seems mostly really good, at least in terms of objectives. I'm kind of puzzled about the emphasis on teaching linear algebra, though. Important for programming I guess, but more fields would benefit from the skills you gain from calculus. IMO it should be both, since they seem to recommend linear algebra in grade 8. Still got 4 more years, so keep cranking the math. The idea that high school students can reach a point where they don't need any more math is stupid. Everyone should learn at least beginner calculus and linear algebra. Based on the content of those standards and my experiences tutoring and teaching math, I'm pretty sure by "linear algebra" they're referring to understanding linear functions, y = mx + b, solving variables, basic systems of equations, etc. We generally don't do anything related to matrices until end of algebra 2 or precalculus, and even then it's pretty basic stuff. Middle school math does not include your typical 200/300/400 level linear algebra college concepts with characteristic polynomials and eigenvalues and linear algebra proofs. In the second half of high school they might do row operations and learn what a square matrix and determinant are, but that's about it.
There was a period in Germany in the 70s were they turned elementary school math teaching around and started teaching kids set theory, sentential logic and so on. It turned out really horrible and the kids had no idea what was going on and they stopped it again. So as far as math teaching goes that didn't turn out to be a great idea. Was confused there for a second when I read "linear algebra in grade 8"
|
On February 12 2016 04:50 Simberto wrote:
However, it is also often reasonable to force a student who progresses too fast to take a step backwards and learn the thing he thinks he knows, but really only has a vague understanding of correctly and solidly. Diagnosis is important here. You have to find out if the student has a good understanding of the topic and thus skips steps, or if he doesn't know what the steps would be and just skips over them in the hopes that the end result will work by accident.
This is the role of your test. If you cannot write a test that determines the difference between your two described students it is a failure of test-writing.
On February 12 2016 05:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize? We developed calculators. Exactly. We also don’t use slide rules. Or teach cursive any more. We could stand to bring back home eco though. That was a class that could have been modernized to teach kids how houses/apartments work.
I think you are ignoring the part where its an academic competition, and its going to be the same 2-3 kids in the class winning all of those. Which is probably going to make a mommy mad at you because her kid finished in 15 minutes instead of 2 and that hurt his feelings.
On February 12 2016 05:11 farvacola wrote:The debate over the Common Core is a pretty good example of how a lot of "big, federal government=bad" narratives end up having very little teeth in the end, particularly when one unpacks exactly what is being claimed. It's pretty common to hear "Common Core is bad because it's forced my kid to do this in school!" However, as has been described above, stateside implementation of the federal mandate is actually what ends up being woefully bad (the Common Core itself is pretty good), and in many cases, this can be directly attributed to some pretty incompetent state boards/departments of educaton. Accordingly, we have to deal with obnoxiously stupid Facebook posts about how some bumfuck parent is mad that he can't figure out how to solve the math problem being taught to his daughter because said bumfuck parent either voted an idiot businessman onto the board of education or didn't vote at all.
I find that most those parents actually don't know how the CC method works, therefore their criticism is invalid. I've figued out quite a few of the math techniques, and I split about 50/50 whether the old method or new method was better. But, particularly the early math (addition, subtraction, multiplication) the old-school style is simply better IMO because it takes up about 1/5 the paper.
|
On February 12 2016 05:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 05:06 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2016 04:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize? We developed calculators. Exactly. We also don’t use slide rules. Or teach cursive any more. We could stand to bring back home eco though. That was a class that could have been modernized to teach kids how houses/apartments work. I think you are ignoring the part where its an academic competition, and its going to be the same 2-3 kids in the class winning all of those. Which is probably going to make a mommy mad at you because her kid finished in 15 minutes instead of 2 and that hurt his feelings.
You are forgetting that is also discourages the students who have the most true, while rewarding the ones that are already succeeding. And kids that are having trouble with a subject have enough on their plate without pitting them against other students. Especially since cogitative skills develop at different rates for all kids. At the grade school level, a chunk if it is rewarding luck that the specific student happens to be advanced in that subject.
|
On February 12 2016 05:19 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 04:50 Simberto wrote:
However, it is also often reasonable to force a student who progresses too fast to take a step backwards and learn the thing he thinks he knows, but really only has a vague understanding of correctly and solidly. Diagnosis is important here. You have to find out if the student has a good understanding of the topic and thus skips steps, or if he doesn't know what the steps would be and just skips over them in the hopes that the end result will work by accident.
This is the role of your test. If you cannot write a test that determines the difference between your two described students it is a failure of test-writing. Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 05:06 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2016 04:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize? We developed calculators. Exactly. We also don’t use slide rules. Or teach cursive any more. We could stand to bring back home eco though. That was a class that could have been modernized to teach kids how houses/apartments work. I think you are ignoring the part where its an academic competition, and its going to be the same 2-3 kids in the class winning all of those. Which is probably going to make a mommy mad at you because her kid finished in 15 minutes instead of 2 and that hurt his feelings. Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 05:11 farvacola wrote:The debate over the Common Core is a pretty good example of how a lot of "big, federal government=bad" narratives end up having very little teeth in the end, particularly when one unpacks exactly what is being claimed. It's pretty common to hear "Common Core is bad because it's forced my kid to do this in school!" However, as has been described above, stateside implementation of the federal mandate is actually what ends up being woefully bad (the Common Core itself is pretty good), and in many cases, this can be directly attributed to some pretty incompetent state boards/departments of educaton. Accordingly, we have to deal with obnoxiously stupid Facebook posts about how some bumfuck parent is mad that he can't figure out how to solve the math problem being taught to his daughter because said bumfuck parent either voted an idiot businessman onto the board of education or didn't vote at all. I find that most those parents actually don't know how the CC method works, therefore their criticism is invalid. I've figued out quite a few of the math techniques, and I split about 50/50 whether the old method or new method was better. But, particularly the early math (addition, subtraction, multiplication) the old-school style is simply better IMO because it takes up about 1/5 the paper.
Ugh. I remember paper was a super limited resource before college. At home, paper was "used" paper from my dad's work that had stuff printed on one side. In middle school, we had to print out things at home and our workbooks were made of that janky crappy paper that tore if you pressed too hard with a sharp pencil. Then in high school (and I went to the number 1 school in Louisiana rofl) we got handouts which had been used for like 4 years that were basically rags, and we had to return them when we were done. 
On February 12 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 05:19 cLutZ wrote:On February 12 2016 05:06 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2016 04:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize? We developed calculators. Exactly. We also don’t use slide rules. Or teach cursive any more. We could stand to bring back home eco though. That was a class that could have been modernized to teach kids how houses/apartments work. I think you are ignoring the part where its an academic competition, and its going to be the same 2-3 kids in the class winning all of those. Which is probably going to make a mommy mad at you because her kid finished in 15 minutes instead of 2 and that hurt his feelings. You are forgetting that is also discourages the students who have the most true, while rewarding the ones that are already succeeding. And kids that are having trouble with a subject have enough on their plate without pitting them against other students. Especially since cogitative skills develop at different rates for all kids. At the grade school level, a chunk if it is rewarding luck that the specific student happens to be advanced in that subject.
We need a way to separate out "gifted" students. You get that a bit with AP and honors in high school, but there's some kids who essentially getting Harrison Bergeron'd earlier on. Bending their growth curve early on is terrible, works the same way as compound interest. I got really, reallylucky with enrichment programs and accelerated classes.
|
On February 12 2016 05:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2016 05:19 cLutZ wrote:On February 12 2016 05:06 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2016 04:57 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 12 2016 04:56 IgnE wrote:
Whatever happened to timed multiplication/division tests where the student who correctly answered every question the fastest wins a prize? We developed calculators. Exactly. We also don’t use slide rules. Or teach cursive any more. We could stand to bring back home eco though. That was a class that could have been modernized to teach kids how houses/apartments work. I think you are ignoring the part where its an academic competition, and its going to be the same 2-3 kids in the class winning all of those. Which is probably going to make a mommy mad at you because her kid finished in 15 minutes instead of 2 and that hurt his feelings. You are forgetting that is also discourages the students who have the most true, while rewarding the ones that are already succeeding. And kids that are having trouble with a subject have enough on their plate without pitting them against other students. Especially since cogitative skills develop at different rates for all kids. At the grade school level, a chunk if it is rewarding luck that the specific student happens to be advanced in that subject.
I don't forget, I disagree because I think there needs to be something to keep elite students engaged at that level. In reading, teachers I know, simply keep books that are several grade levels above to keep them engaged.
^^ Yes ticklish. Also, its not just the paper that is a limited resource, its writing a lot which hurts your wrist 
|
Separating kids in grade school isn’t that productive, IMO. A lot of education at that age is about learning to socialize and deal with other people. Of course history is important, but really we are teaching kids hot to control themselves and function in an educational setting. And advanced students at that age might not stay advanced. That is the problem with separating them so early, you might have to send them back.
But this call be been addressed with smaller classrooms sizes and more direct education. It’s a lot easier to challenge the advanced students if you only have 15 students. But challenging advanced students is always a problem, but one that isn't hard to solve if you have time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
